1 2025:CGHC:57344 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3920 of 2023 1 - Khelu Ram Tandan S/o Laxman Ram Tandan Aged About 35 Years Village Borid Post Office- Fingeshwar, Tahsil- Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Health, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical Collage, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Dean Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru, Memorial, Medical College, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 25/11/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 05.10.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 03 and further allowed the petitioner to work as ward boy. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the direction for the respondent authorities to count absent period as service period for all purpose. 10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Ward Boy on 17.01.2011 and, upon successfully completing his probation, his services were regularized on 27.07.2013. Thereafter, he rendered his duties honestly until he suffered a severe episode of ill- health, including acute lower back pain that left him unable to walk and required hospitalization at the District Hospital, Gariyaband, which also caused mental distress. Due to his medical condition, the petitioner remained absent from duty, during which period certain notices regarding unauthorized absence were allegedly issued, though he did not receive any of them. On 11.08.2015, the respondents constituted an inquiry committee behind his back without serving any notice upon him, and subsequently, by order dated 05.10.2015, respondent No. 3 terminated his services without adhering to the prescribed procedure under the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules and in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice. The petitioner continued to suffer from severe back pain from 2014 to 2021 and remained incapable of attending work. After recovering, he submitted a representation on 12.10.2021 to respondents No. 2 and 3 seeking reinstatement; however, no decision has been communicated to him to date. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, illegal, and issued in complete disregard of the established legal procedure, thus violating the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner was never served with any formal notice or charge-sheet regarding any departmental inquiry, nor was he informed about the proceedings against him. In fact, the petitioner was never apprised of the nature or grounds of the alleged charges or the inquiry that was purportedly conducted by the respondents. The absence of any proper notice or charge-sheet and the failure to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to defend himself before the impugned order was passed renders the action of respondent No. 3 violative of the principles of fairness and transparency enshrined under Article 14 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the impugned order was passed without the initiation of any formal departmental inquiry, which is a mandatory requirement under law for imposing any penalty on a Government servant. The petitioner was not served with any charge-sheet nor was he provided an opportunity to respond to any allegations made against him. The absence of such a procedure goes against the fundamental principles of natural justice, which necessitate that an individual should be made aware of the charges against them and given a fair opportunity to defend themselves before any punitive action is taken. Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is in direct contravention of Rule 24 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, which governs the treatment of leave and absence from duty. The said rule 4 specifically provides that willful absence from duty after the expiry of leave may render a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. However, the rule further clarifies that such absence should not be treated as a break in service unless it is specifically established as willful misconduct. In the present case, the petitioner’s absence was due to severe back pain, a medical condition that incapacitated him and required hospitalization. As such, his absence cannot be classified as willful, and there is no justification for treating his absence as a break in service, particularly in light of the medical records and documents submitted in this regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegation made in the impugned order, that the petitioner is solely liable for disciplinary action, fails to account for the fact that the petitioner’s absence was directly attributable to genuine medical reasons. While it is acknowledged that disciplinary action may be initiated for unauthorized absence, it is submitted that the respondents failed to follow the prescribed procedure, which includes issuing a charge-sheet, conducting an inquiry, and providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Instead, the impugned order was passed in violation of the mandatory requirements of due process, and without following the procedural safeguards established under the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, as well as the constitutional protections afforded under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Moreover, it is submitted that the petitioner, having suffered from prolonged and severe back pain from 2014 to 2021, was in no position to attend his duties, and the same was corroborated by the medical documents 5 submitted herewith. The petitioner’s health condition was such that it not only impaired his ability to perform his work, but also caused considerable mental distress, leading to the petitioner’s inability to communicate regularly with the authorities. Upon recovery, the petitioner made a representation on 12.10.2021, seeking reinstatement and clarification on the status of his employment, but to date, he has not received any response or acknowledgment from the respondents. In light of foregoing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 is unlawful, unjust, and in breach of the petitioner’s rights. The respondents have failed to adhere to the established legal procedures and have disregarded the petitioner’s genuine medical condition, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Court may set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, with appropriate compensation for the period of unlawful termination. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the averments made by the petitioner against the answering respondents are misconceived, misleading, and hereby specifically and vehemently denied. The instant petition, in the view of the respondents, deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, as the petitioner has failed to approach this Court within a reasonable period, having filed the petition almost 8 years after the termination order was passed. It is submitted that the petitioner’s contention regarding the issuance of notices and the claim of being unaware of the departmental proceedings against 6 him is vehemently denied. Contrary to the petitioner’s claims, the respondents took all necessary steps to notify the petitioner about the ongoing proceedings. Multiple notices were sent to the petitioner through registered post at his known address, including letters bearing Nos. 17998 dated 09.12.2014, 4189 dated 01.04.2015, and 7405 dated 25.06.2015. Additionally, a public notice was published in the Navbharat daily newspaper on 12.07.2015, to ensure that the petitioner was informed. The petitioner failed to respond to any of these communications, which were duly sent in accordance with the law. On 11.08.2015, an inquiry committee was duly constituted by the respondents to investigate the petitioner’s unauthorized absence. The committee was tasked with reviewing all aspects of the petitioner’s service, particularly his unauthorized absence since 24.07.2014. The committee diligently followed due process and noted that, despite the several notices issued to the petitioner and the public notice published in the newspaper, the petitioner failed to respond or provide any explanation for his prolonged absence. As a result, the committee took its decision based on the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and in line with Clause 2 of Circular dated 10.02.2015 passed by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of General Administration and Development, which mandates disciplinary action against Government servants who remain absent without authorization for a period of one month or more. Clause 2 of the Circular dated 10.02.2015 specifically directs that Government employees who remain absent without leave for extended periods should be considered as having interrupted service, and 7 disciplinary action should be initiated under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, with a potential penalty of removal or dismissal from service if the allegations are proven. In this case, the inquiry committee found that the petitioner had violated these rules, and as a result, his service was terminated by the Dean of Pt. J.N.M. Medical College, Raipur, on 05.10.2015, in compliance with the provisions of the circular. The petitioner’s argument that the termination order was passed without a fair procedure is, therefore, wholly without merit. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself, both through the notices sent to him and the public notice published in the newspaper. His failure to respond to these notices left the respondents with no option but to proceed with the disciplinary action. The respondents, having followed the prescribed procedure and acted within the bounds of the law, have adequately justified the termination of the petitioner’s service. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner filed the present petition after an unreasonable delay of nearly 8 years from the date of his termination. Such a delay is not only prejudicial to the respondents, but also reflects the petitioner’s lack of diligence in pursuing his claim. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. The termination of the petitioner’s services was carried out without following the mandatory procedural requirements set out under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 8 1966, which govern the process for disciplinary actions. In particular, the petitioner was not served with a charge-sheet detailing the specific allegations against him, nor was he provided an opportunity to respond to those allegations or to defend himself before the inquiry committee. The failure to issue a charge-sheet or provide any notice to the petitioner, coupled with the lack of any hearing or representation on his behalf, constitutes a direct violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees civil servants the right to a fair hearing before being dismissed or removed from service. This failure to observe the procedural safeguards laid down by law renders the action of the respondents arbitrary, unjust, and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. Furthermore, the lack of a formal departmental inquiry exacerbates the situation. The respondents, despite claiming to have constituted an inquiry committee, failed to conduct a formal inquiry in line with the prescribed rules. The petitioner was not given any notice regarding the initiation of an inquiry, nor was he informed about the nature or scope of the investigation. The inquiry committee’s actions were taken without the petitioner being made aware of the charges or being given an opportunity to be heard. Such a proceeding is fundamentally flawed as it bypasses the fair trial process required under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, and violates the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 311. The absence of a formal inquiry, or any opportunity for the petitioner to defend himself, undermines the integrity of the entire disciplinary process. 9 8. The petitioner’s absence from work was due to genuine medical reasons, specifically severe back pain that rendered him incapable of walking and required hospitalization. The petitioner has provided medical documentation to substantiate his claim. Despite this, the respondents chose to classify the petitioner’s absence as unauthorized and to treat it as a break in service. This was not only unfair but also incorrect, as Rule 24 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 clearly states that an absence due to medical reasons should not be treated as willful misconduct unless it is specifically established as such. The petitioner’s absence was not willful; it was the result of an incapacitating medical condition that prevented him from performing his duties. By failing to consider the petitioner’s medical condition, the respondents acted in a manner that was both unreasonable and contrary to the spirit of the rules governing leave and absence. Additionally, the delay in filing the petition, which was cited by the respondents as a reason for dismissal on the grounds of laches, does not overshadow the more significant issues of procedural irregularity and violation of natural justice. While there may have been a delay in approaching the Court, the delay does not absolve the respondents from their obligation to follow due process in terminating the petitioner’s services. The grave violations of procedure and the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing override the argument of delay, as the petitioner’s rights to due process and fair treatment were compromised from the outset. 9. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the impugned termination order was not only procedurally defective but also fundamentally unjust. The respondents failed to provide the petitioner with the opportunity to 10 defend himself, failed to follow the prescribed legal procedures for disciplinary action, and unjustly terminated his services without considering his legitimate medical condition. For these reasons, the impugned order dated 05.10.2015 cannot be sustained, and it is hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service, subject to the respondents' right to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the due procedure of law. 11. The respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, following the due process and in accordance with the law, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and the relevant statutory rules. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE